Beer Smash Photos

Call it the Denver Beer Party. A friend who attended the March 13 "Beer Smash" sent in the photographs reproduced below. The event was to protest beer protectionism and advocate liberty in beer sales, particularly the right of grocers to sell regular beer to consenting adults. See my first write up and link to the YouTube video, then my follow-up based on comments from the Denver Daily News.


Denver channels 2, 4, 7, and 9 came out for the event.


Earl Allen, Ari Armstrong, Amanda Teresi, and David Williams spoke at the event.


Justin Longo (at right) also helped with the logistics.




Notice the large plastic sheet and rags to contain the mess.










We interrupted the speeches to get to the beer smashing, as one of the stations was broadcasting live. Then Dave finished up his remarks and Earl argued that we should repeal this remaining vestige of Prohibition.


Hasta (la vista) Manana. (Manana was one of the beers I smashed.) It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. Notice that the mess was contained within the plastic and rags. I did get a bit more splatter than I anticipated, so I carefully cleaned up the area using a damp rag. For good measure we also picked up additional trash, such as cigarette butts, left by others.

I thank my fellow freedom fighters for their help with the event.

CO Brewers Should Endorse Liberty

Last Friday, I helped to organize a "beer smash" protest against beer protectionism. I joined other speakers in making the case for free markets in beer sales. Right now Colorado grocers are legally forbidden from selling regular beer to consenting adults.

A Monday story from the Denver Daily News quoted me and another like-minded fellow:

"Competition is competition," said John G., who wouldn't disclose his last name. "If liquor stores can't compete with the big bucks stores, then that's just the nature of capitalism."

Ari Armstrong, publisher of FreeColorado.com, is a vocal advocate of getting a version of HB 1192 on the Nov. 2010 ballot. The Web site publisher staged an event at the Capitol on Friday where he smashed bottles in protest of the grocery limits, arguing that not allowing grocery stores to sell full strength beer is "using the force of the government to harm competitors and favor certain businesses."

"Protectionism is wrong," he said. "What we want instead of protectionism is a free market, where merchants and customers can come together voluntarily of their own choice and associate in the way that they deem best. What we need, in a word, is liberty."

During my brief talk, I also explained that Colorado's beer protectionism is endorsed by "an unholy alliance of special-interest groups." The first group is liquor stores, which stand to gain financially by legislatively damaging their competitors. The second group is (some) small brewers. The third group consists of "self-righteous moralists who think it's their job to tell the rest of us how to live our lives."

This newspaper line is particularly illustrative of the "Bootleggers and Baptists" sort of special-interest convergence: "[T]he Colorado Licensed Beverage Association and others, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said teen convenience store clerks would possibly cave to peer pressure and start sneaking full-strength beer out to their friends."

I've addressed arguments about underage sales previously. Here I want to focus on the arguments of the brewers:

Brian Dunn, president of Great Divide Brewing Co., said consumers would likely have seen less variety of beer throughout Colorado as a result of House Bill 1192. He said large supermarket corporations would not stock as much variety as liquor retailers do, but that retailers would go out of business, leaving less variety on the shelves.

"One of the reasons that the beer is so good here is because the independently owned liquor stores are willing to carry a very wide variety of beer that is produced by the craft brewers," said Dunn. "That variety will be seriously hindered if this bill passes."

Colorado beer drinkers who favor economic liberty may want to note that Great Divide has added its name to the list of those pushing protectionism.

Dunn's argument is ridiculous. He is basically claiming that brewers will be hurt by having more merchants to sell their beer to.

Beer protectionism has nothing to do with the success of Colorado brewers. Instead, Colorado is known for its beer for two main reasons. First, Coloradans like good beer: they demand it and buy it. Second, as I've mentioned, legislative changes in the 1980s allowed brewpubs to do business.

Beer Advocate notes about 1982 -- just a year after the Great American Beer Festival began in Colorado: "For the first time since prohibition, a brewery is allowed to open that not only sells its' beer at its' own bar on premises, but serves food to boot. In Bert Grant's Yakima Brewing and Malting Co., Inc., [in Washington] the Brew Pub is born." Obviously, such legal changes have a lot to do with the success of Colorado's brewing industry, while beer protectionism has nothing to do with it.

The fact is that Colorado brewers are in business today because protectionism against their industry was lifted. Now some of these same brewers hypocritically wish to impose similar protectionist policies on other merchants.

Is it true that brewers would have less of a market if grocery stores could sell beer? I grant that, while the figures put out by the liquor store industry strike me as fear-mongering, probably some liquor stores will close. But if they're only in business because they legislatively harm their competitors, they don't deserve to be in business. Liquor stores that offer genuine value to their customers, through better selection, better service, etc., will continue to thrive. Not only that, but many grocers will carry a large selection of craft beer.

I went to two local liquor stores yesterday. One carried four brands of Colorado beer; the other carried five. Both stores sold only a tiny fraction of available Colorado craft beers, and both stocked far more big-name and non-Colorado beer. This is typical of smaller liquor stores I've seen. No doubt at least some grocers would stock a larger selection of Colorado craft beer than those liquor stores stock. Larger liquor stores, on the other hand, feature a spectacular selection and would compete with grocery stores successfully on that basis.

Let us look to Arizona, where grocery stores sell beer, wine, and liquor. A search of liquor stores in Tucson hardly shows a dearth of them.

Meanwhile, an employee of the St. Mary's Safeway in Tucson told me, "We have quite a few off brands" from "all over America," including Sierra Nevada (California), New Belgium (Colorado), and Four Peaks (Arizona).

Protectionism artificially creates winners and losers by legislative fiat. Once that protectionism is removed, winners and losers will again be chosen by consumers on a free market. That makes for hard times for those who benefited from protectionism. But protectionism is unjust, and it harms consumers and select merchants.

Those favoring protectionism like to tell hysterical stories about what allegedly will happen once the protectionism is repealed. But the sky has not fallen in other states that lack such protectionism, and it will not fall in Colorado, either. A free market in beer sales will instead restore the right of free exchange and offer greater value to consumers.

Give us liberty in beer sales.

Beer Smash Protests Protectionism

This morning some friends and I hosted a media conference in Denver to advocate freedom in beer sales and to protest beer protectionism. Earl Allen, who spoke at the event along with Amanda Teresi and Dave Williams (and me), put together a YouTube video:



Here's the release I sent out yesterday:

ISSUE: Allow Grocery Sales of Real Beer, End Protectionism

PHOTO OPPORTUNITY: Smashing Beer Bottles to protest beer protectionism and advocate liberty in beer sales

WHEN AND WHERE: West Steps, Colorado Capitol, 11:00 a.m., Friday, March 13

SPEAKERS:
Ari Armstrong, publisher of FreeColorado.com
Amanda Teresi, founder of Liberty on the Rocks
Dave Williams, president of the Gadsden Society
Additional speakers pending [Earl Allen became the fourth speaker]

"Grocery stores have a right to sell regular beer to consenting adults, and beer drinkers have the right to shop at stores of their choice. By killing Bill 1192 Wednesday, the legislature maintained unjust protectionism at the cost of individual liberty, property rights, and freedom of association," said Ari Armstrong.

Armstrong will smash beer bottles from Colorado brewers who endorsed protectionism. The event will feature appropriate measures for safety and cleanup, so no beer or glass will be left on state property.

"The protectionists are smashing our liberty, so it's only appropriate that we smash their beer," Armstrong said.

Brewers who opposed 1192, thereby endorsing protectionism, include the following:

Bristol Brewing Co.

Del Norte Brewing Company

Colorado Brewers Guild

I do think it's a mistake to think that the Brewer's Guild necessarily speaks for all its members. I don't mean to suggest that Bristol and Del Norte are the only or primary offenders; they're just the ones I learned about. (Bristol's oatmeal stout is spectacular, by the way, so I was especially pained to break bottles of that.)

I support Colorado's beer and wine industry, and I have supported the freedom of brewers to produce and sell their products. Beer and wine producers, above all other businesses, should understand the devastating power of political intervention. Their industry was legally squashed for years in this nation. So why do some brewers support using political force to squash certain business transactions now? They should know better.

Other things equal, I'd prefer to buy my beer from producers who stand up for freedom rather than trample individual rights. So if anybody knows of any Colorado brewers who opposed the protectionist measures restricting grocery beer sales (or that even took an officially neutral position), please let me know, and I'd be happy to promote those brewers and go out of my way to buy beer from them.

I support liberty, and I try to support businesses that support liberty.

7 News broadcast the event live just after 11:00 a.m. CBS4 also published a story on the event, as did 9News.

Blogger Richard Combs writes, "I agree completely with Ari that this is unjust protectionism, and that the State of Colorado should long ago have abandoned this vestige of prohibitionism... But… the idea of smashing perfectly good, drinkable bottles of beer just disturbs me deeply."

I hear you, my friend, but what's truly disturbing is the political smashing of our liberties.

I'm going to end my evening, of course, with a beer, and a toast to liberty.

Time to Bring Beer Sales to Ballot

It is a classic case of cowardly, unprincipled, anti-freedom legislators pandering to "concentrated interests" at the expense of justice and the dispersed populace.

Grocers have the right -- the right -- to sell products of their choice, including regular beer, to willing buyers (who are adults). And consumers have the right to shop for the goods and services of their choice from willing sellers. That is, grocers and their customers have the right to freely exchange goods on mutually agreeable terms.

Yet Colorado law violates this right of free exchange by restricting grocery store sales (except for a single store of a chain) to low-alcohol beer, which only weenies drink. The law is wrong, it is protectionist in nature (meaning that it protects special interests at the expense of select merchants and consumers), and in the name of justice and liberty it must be overturned.

Last year the legislature overturned the law banning Sunday liquor sales at stores. Some liquor stores went along in the hopes that they'd pick up more business. But the justification of the law -- and many politicians and reporters are confused on this matter -- was not any impact it might have had on overall sales. The justification of the law was that it expanded liberty and protected individual rights, in however small a way.

Now it is time to complete the repeal of Prohibition.

If 38 other states can allow the sale of normal beer in grocery stores, why does anyone think the sky will fall in Colorado if the unjust restriction is repealed?

First beer brewers, teaming up with liquor stores for the protectionist racket, argued that the protectionist legislation expands the number of beers sold. I pointed out that, first, the argument is likely false, as grocery stores would offer an expanded market to many breweres, and, second, that the argument is irrelevant, because sellers and buyers have the right to sell whatever products they want on mutually agreeable terms.

Then the protectionists joined with the social activists to argue that protectionism is needed "for the children." I answered that protecting minors does not require and does not justify violating the rights of adults. Besides, beer sales would be at least as tightly monitored at grocery stores as they are at liquor stores.

Thankfully, the forces of freedom are not backing down. The Denver Post reports:

Bill sponsor Rep. Buffie McFadyen, who delivered 66,000 signatures from shoppers favoring expanded strong-beer sales, said she thinks the issue could end up on the 2010 ballot.

"And they will certainly want to include more than just beer," said McFadyen, D-Pueblo West, hinting that wine and spirits could be included in a future initiative.

Of course, restrictions on liquor store food sales should also be lifted.

Though the Post claims the bill was defeated by a 7-4 vote in committee, the legislature's page reports that House Bill 1192 was killed in the House Business Affairs and Labor Committee killed the bill on March 11 by a vote of 8-3. (I called the capitol to verify this.) Following is a list of legislators who voted for and against, again according to the legislative web page. (The vote was whether to "postpone indefinitely," or kill the bill, so a "Yes" vote was a vote to kill the bill.)

For Liberty, Against Protectionism
David Balmer, Republican, Arapahoe
Larry Liston, Republican, El Paso
Edward Casso, Democrat, Adams

Against Liberty, For Protectionism
Laura Bradford, Republican, Mesa
Sara Gagliardi, Democrat, Jefferson
Kevin Priola, Republican, Adams
Su Ryden, Democrat, Arapahoe
Christine Scanlan, Democrat, Eagle, Lake, Summit
John Soper, Democrat, Adams
Amy Stephens, Republican, El Paso
Joe Rice, Democrat, Arapahoe, Jefferson

So Republicans on the committee voted against the measure by 3-2, while Democrats voted against it 5-1, even though McFadyen, the bill's sponsor, is a Democrat. On net, both parties continue their hostility to property rights and freedom of association. (The Denver Business Journal reports that "several legislators said that while they agree that the state's liquor-sales laws need reform, they felt it should come in comprehensive fashion, not just in a piecemeal bill that benefits grocery and convenience stores." But when is more liberty ever a bad thing?)

It is time for the people of Colorado to take back their liberty.

A Good Beer Needs No Political Force

The following article was published by Colorado Daily on January 26, 2009, under the title, "Free our beer: Stop telling grocers what they can and can't sell." It also appears on the Independence Institute's web page as "A Good Beer Needs No Political Force."

Game time is ten minutes from now. Tortilla chips, check. Salsa, check. Okay, where's the real beer? If you've ever wanted to buy food and fine beer at the same store, tough luck. State law says that's a crime.

Last year the Democrats pushed through the free-market reform of allowing liquor stores and their customers to conduct business on Sundays. Yet the Colorado liquor industry remains hampered by Prohibition-era controls. State law prohibits liquor stores from opening chains and selling food. It forbids grocery stores from selling anything but low-alcohol beer, and that's the big fight this year.

In a January 11 article for the Rocky Mountain News, John Carlson, executive director of the Colorado Brewers Guild, argues that the grocery-store restrictions promote "the diverse array of beer styles for which Colorado is nationally known... because independent liquor stores offer [craft brewers] vital access to market." However, truly "independent" liquor stores wouldn't demand protectionism imposed by politicians and their army of bureaucrats.

The point of the free market is not to maximize choices in beer or any other item, but to protect liberty. If having the most beers available were the goal, the state could force all liquor stores to carry every single beer brewed throughout the world. State law could also force existing brewers to expand ten-fold the styles of beer they produce. Somehow, I doubt the people paying Carlson's salary would appreciate such laws.

Free markets do offer consumers vast choices by protecting their right to exchange on mutually agreeable terms. People naturally seek a wide variety of goods and services. When politicians attempt to ensure "choice" by forcibly intervening in trade, they destroy people's choice to buy and sell as they see fit.

Choice does not justify force. For example, we have fewer choices today in horse-drawn buggies, hand-sewn clothing, and pet rocks. If politicians tried to force us to buy more of those things, they would undermine our choice to shop for other goods.

Carlson implausibly claims that grocery store sales would restrict the diversity of beer. The rise of microbrews is due to consumer demand, not protectionism. Some grocery stores would stock a wide selection, expanding the ability of craft brewers to get their product to market. Many stores would continue to compete for the business of those who just can't decide between that Smokejumper Porter and Mephistopheles' Stout.

Stores properly compete on diversity of selection, price, and customer service. Some people just want an ice-cold Coors. Others want the global sampler pack. Some shop for convenience, others for rare beers sold by knowledgeable employees. Telling grocery stores they can sell only low-alcohol beer is a bit like telling Wal-Mart it can sell only Britney Spears in the music aisle. We don't protect butcher shops by forcing grocery stores to sell only fatty hamburger.

By forcibly limiting the choices of shoppers who prefer a basic selection at lower prices, Colorado law forces some beer drinkers to subsidize those with more eccentric tastes.

Protectionism helps some businesses by harming their competitors. It violates the spirit of camaraderie, liberty, and free competition that craft brewers are supposed to represent. At game time, root for your team, and root also for the freedom to buy goods and services from anyone willing to sell them. And don't forget the salsa.


Ari Armstrong is a guest writer for the Independence Institute and the editor of FreeColorado.com.

Prohibition Free for 75 Years

To celebrate the 75th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition, I wrote a letter to the Rocky Mountain News that the paper published today. Here I extend my comments.

I summarize in the letter, "Then, like today, Republicans promoted statist controls of both economy and social life. Democrats ramped up the economic controls but promised to liberate people in their personal choices."

The paper edited out the next line: "Prohibitionist Republicans alienated many freedom-minded voters -- including arch-capitalist Ayn Rand -- and Roosevelt trounced Hoover in the presidential contest."

I called the Ayn Rand Institute to verify the claim about Rand. Jeff Britting, archivist for the organization, said that Rand voted for FDR in his first presidential election because of his opposition to prohibition. However, Britting noted, Rand later became more political and became a vocal critic of FDR and the New Deal. The information is contained in unpublished audio recordings from the 1960s. Apparently Rand expressed concern about the expansion of state power as well as the problem of organized crime.

While poking around on the internet, I also found the claim that Isabel Paterson voted for FDR the first time around. Biographer Stephen Cox noted that this information is contained in Paterson's letter to Lillian Fischer, dated September 8, 1932. Cox writes:

She had voted for Roosevelt. She didn't like him, but at least he was opposed to prohibition. She made no comment on the fact that his platform favored certain economic policies that she approved, such as a balanced budget and a deep cut in federal spending. Once the New Deal got underway, she reminded people about his unkept campaign pledges; during the election, however, she seems to have taken them no more seriously than he did. [The Woman and the Dynamo, page 165, endnotes omitted.]

The parallels between then and now are striking. Bush, like Hoover, dramatically expanded the power of the federal government. Bush, like Hoover, alienated many voters with his commitment to social controls.

Note that I am not arguing that FDR won because of Prohibition; I am arguing that Prohibition was an important contributing factor. Likewise, Republicans did not get trounced during this last election solely because of their social conservatism and faith-based politics. As I have stated, I think McCain hammed the final nail in his own electoral coffin when he rushed to the District of Columbia to push through Bush's bailout. This proved to the American people, most of whom opposed the bailout, that, like Hoover, modern Republicans are enemies of economic liberty.

I do not think that Obama will be as destructive as FDR was. (Nor do I think people like Paterson or Rand could have predicted just how bad FDR would turn out to be.) Those decades of the 20th Century were dominated by the rise of Communism. My dad is currently reading The Haunted Wood, and he reports that FDR's government contained Soviet-friendly officials. Those were the ideas of the era. Today, the collapse of Communism continues to inform people's basic worldviews, and free markets continue to attract many. But this is an aside. Despite the many differences between the times, Bush is in many important respects Obama's Hoover.

Also edited out of the letter was this bit about Hoover:

Hoover complained about the violent police raids, crime, disrespect for the law, and international smuggling associated with Prohibition, but he praised its "high purpose" and hoped "it was the final solution of the evils of the liquor traffic." He wanted to return control to the states while achieving "elimination of the evils of this traffic."

These claims come from two sources. The first quotes some of Hoover's comments on Prohibition. The second is Hoover's acceptance of nomination speech on August 11, 1932. What struck me about this speech is Hoover's wishy-washiness. He seems to want to maintain a general policy of Prohibition while restoring power over the matter to the states.

I was also struck by FDR's condemnation of "the saloon" even as he forcefully demanded the repeal of the 18th Amendment:

And talking about setting a definite example, I congratulate this convention for having had the courage fearlessly to write into its declaration of principles what an overwhelming majority here assembled really thinks about the 18th Amendment. This convention wants repeal. Your candidate wants repeal. And I am confident that the United States of America wants repeal.

Two years ago the platform on which I ran for Governor the second time contained substantially the same provision. The overwhelming sentiment of the people of my State, as shown by the vote of that year, extends, I know, to the people of many of the other States. I say to you now that from this date on the 18th Amendment is doomed. When that happens, we as Democrats must and will, rightly and morally, enable the States to protect themselves against the importation of intoxicating liquor where such importation may violate their State laws. We must rightly and morally prevent the return of the saloon.

But, if FDR hated "saloons," he had no aversion to alcohol. He said of the Volstead Act on March 13, 1933:

To the Congress:
I recommend to the Congress the passage of legislation for the immediate modification of the Volstead Act, in order to legalize the manufacture and sale of beer and other beverages of such alcoholic content as is permissible under the Constitution; and to provide through such manufacture and sale, by substantial taxes, a proper and much-needed revenue for the Government. I deem action at this time to be of the highest importance.

I was unable to nail down the details about the quote, "I think this would be a good time for a beer." Wikipedia links the quote to the Volstead amendment. Yet others link the quote to the 21st Amendment.

I got the information about Colorado's wine industry from a web page hosted by the Colorado Wine Industry Development Board. I found it ironic that, while the state government once destroyed the wine industry, now it actively promotes it through dedicated tax funds.

Yet the evening wears on, and I have not yet made my own toast to the repeal of Prohibition.

Celebrate Repeal of Prohibition

Rock Bottom Brewery pointed out in an e-mail that this Friday, December 5, marks the 75th anniversary of the repeal of prohibition. We can celebrate the repeal of this ignoble experiment, even as we strive to overcome its evil step-children of controls on alcohol, drugs, and guns.

Rock Bottom announces:

[J]oin us for a celebratory toast to the 75th Anniversary of the Repeal of Prohibition and cheer like it's 1933!

... In 1933, after too many days and weeks of empty pints (4708 days too many), there was finally an end to the drought and we were again OK to join our friends, raise a glass, and cheer a historic day in our history!

Here's to another 75 years of good times and great beer!

I'll drink to that.

Ritter Throws Art Shops a Bone

I was glancing through Bill Ritter's media releases when I happened upon the following:

OFFICE OF GOV. BILL RITTER, JR.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 2008 ...

GOV. RITTER SIGNS BILL BOOSTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR THE ARTS

At an art gallery and framing shop in North Denver's Berkeley neighborhood, Gov. Bill Ritter today signed legislation that will further support Colorado's burgeoning arts economy, which is rapidly becoming an integral part of neighborhood economic development across the state.

HB 1105 (Frangas/Sandoval) allows art galleries to serve alcohol for up to four hours per day, for no more than 15 days per year. Permits will have to be renewed annually and the alcohol has to be complimentary. The bill requires an annual state art gallery permit fee of $50, and a local license fee of $25.

"This is good for art galleries, their patrons, for businesses and for communities," Gov. Ritter said during a signing ceremony at Metro Frame Works Custom Framing and 44 T Art Space, owned by Kevin Paul and very often occupied by his greyhounds Milo and Gracie.

"While art is definitely at the center of this, it's also about other neighborhood businesses -- hardware stores, print shops, coffee houses and restaurants included," Gov. Ritter added. "This is about neighborhoods and building a sense of community."

The bill won unanimous passage in both the House and Senate.

Well, that's great -- businesses can now occasionally give away alcohol by paying a mere $75 extra per year to the government. Some gift.

But this is not a case of the government "boosting" the arts; it is a case of government no longer hindering business quite as severely.

Real liberty would mean that art galleries and others could give away or sell alcohol, whenever they please, without having to first pay off the state's bureaucrats.

Drunkard DA?

Lest we need a reminder that angels do not administer the laws, the Gazette reports (via the Rocky Mountain News): "Fourth Judicial District Attorney John Newsome has been caught on tape drinking and then driving his county-owned vehicle, KOAA reported Tuesday. ...In all, Newsome was shown drinking about 134 ounces of beer in five hours." True, the drinking didn't start till after 4:00 p.m., and whether he was legally impaired is not a matter for me to decide. I wouldn't have been able to drink 70 ounces of beer in "less than two hours" and then drive responsibly. KOAA's video of the story is fairly damning. I do think that District Attorneys driving tax-funded vehicles should be held to a high standard. I assume that Newsome's office handles cases of impaired driving.

Ritter Signs Blue-Law Repeal

Starting July 1, Coloradans will be able to purchase liquor in stores on Sundays. The Rocky Mountain News reports:

With the stroke of a pen, Gov. Bill Ritter today signed into law a bill that makes Colorado the 35th state to permit liquor stores to open Sunday.

“This is a law whose time has finally come,” Ritter said in a statement. “The ban on Sunday sales was an antiquated law that long ago outlived its usefulness or relevance.” ...

The new law came about after liquor store owners dropped their long-standing opposition to Sunday sales.

They made the switch to head off legislation that would have allowed grocery and convenience stores to sell full-strength beer and wine. Lawmakers killed that bill in the face of strong opposition from liquor store owners.

So Colorado continues to suffer from a host of political controls on the liquor industry. Liquor stores can't sell food, and grocery stores can't sell anything but 3.2 beer (except in one location per chain). Nor can liquor stores start chains. Also, Sunday car sales continue to be illegal.

But we can buy bottled booze on Sundays. It's not much, but it's something. So, thank you Democrats. While many political issues are arcane and confusing, this one is simple and obvious to the common person. During all of its years in the majority, the Republicans did nothing but fight for the Blue Laws against the interests and liberty of consumers. On this issue, the Republicans left it to the Democrats to score one for economic liberty.

April 18 Update: Penn Pfiffner writes:

In your recent blog dealing with a step toward rolling back the Blue Laws, you said:

"During all of its years in the majority, the Republicans did nothing but fight for the Blue Laws against the interests and liberty of consumers. On this issue, the Republicans left it to the Democrats to score one for economic liberty."

True, in that the legislature never acted successfully through those years. I wanted to bring to your attention, however, that I offered legislation to end the Sunday prohibition on both liquor sales and car sales. The Republican-majority Business Affairs Committee killed the bill. If memory serves, this was sometime during the 59th General Assembly (1993 or 1994).

I appreciate Pfiffner's clarification and his work in the legislature and out.

I was referring to Republicans as a party, not to individual Republicans who sided with economic liberty.

Boulder Police Chief: Allow 18-Year-Olds to Drink

John C. Ensslin wrote a story for the March 6 Rocky Mountain News that describes some of the views of Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner regarding the drinking age. Ensslin reports:

"... I can say in summary that in addition to personal philosophical arguments (they are considered adults in every other way), I believe that the level of drinking between the ages of 18 to 21 has actually increased over the last 20 years," Beckner wrote [in a letter to City Council members].

"All of the efforts we have tried to implement over the years, including education, awareness programs, heavy enforcement, etc., have had little effect on preventing 18- to 20-year-old adults from drinking.

"What we've done is helped create an underground culture that encourages binge drinking without any oversight or supervision."

Ensslin wrote a follow-up article further explaining Beckner's views:

Beckner stressed that his department is not backing off enforcement of existing laws.

Nor is he suggesting lawmakers simply lower the drinking age without taking steps to encourage responsible drinking.

For example, Beckner said the law could require an 18-year-old to attend a mandatory alcohol awareness class to earn the right to drink.

He suggested that perhaps the law could allow 18- to 21- year-olds to drink in a restaurant but not buy alcohol from package stores.

Any change would have to come on a national level, he said.

I have long favored setting the drinking age at the age of legal adulthood, which is 18 in our society. It's not right that a person can get married, have children, sign contracts, and fight in war -- but not buy a beer.

Following are three articles I've written about the matter previously:

Dempsey Challenges Unreasonable Alcohol Laws
Fight Colorado's Discriminatory Drinking Age Law
Miles Supports Lower Drinking Age

Squash Competition to Save It?

I had to laugh at this headline for a Rocky Mountain News Speakout by William J. Barr: "Chain stores would ruin Colorado's competitive liquor business."

The thrust the piece is that Colorado's legislature must maintain the ban on chain liquor stores in order to preserve competition. In other words, in Barr's view, "competition" means threatening to send in armed officers to prevent people from opening stores. "Competition" means forcibly preventing people from associating voluntarily in the economic sphere. In short, according to Barr, "competition" means outlawing select "capitalist acts among consenting adults," to again invoke Nozick.

Barr's position is utterly ridiculous. Using political force to shut down one's competitors is the antithesis of free-market competition. But apparently Barr favors the sort of competition by which special interest groups grovel for protectionist legislation from morally corrupt politicians.

Real competition means that people have the protected right to offer their goods and services freely to willing customers. Nobody is forcing a single consumer to do business with a store that happens to be part of a chain. On a free market, any store that does not meet the needs of consumers will fail. If a chain succeeds on a free market, it is because quality management, economies of scale, and/or earned reputation draws in customers. So what Barr is really arguing is that customers must be forcibly prevented from doing business with stores that best meet their needs.